The utility of 2A in an armed insurrection / resistance of the US Government.

My belief is that it is reminiscent from WW2. It struck me while reading Band of Brothers, how Ambrose characterized how the US troops related to the populaces of the different countries. They got along well with the British, they related the most to the Germans, and had a lot of contempt for the French. This contempt for the French was due to perceived work ethics. The French didn’t seem terribly motivated to rebuild after battle damage. The Germans and British generally got right on it. Add to that France’s overall performance during the early stages of the war and you have the modern perception of them as lazy surrender monkeys.

Nevin73 wrote:

My belief is that it is reminiscent from WW2.

Methinks you mean a remnant.

Duoae wrote:

I'm pretty sure the English hating the French thing is a terrible outdated stereotype from at least a century and a half ago.

I'm pretty sure that you're wrong. "Hating the French" was par for the course when I was a lad in England. Hate is the wrong word though, it's really "Feel Superior To The French", because of berets and stripey sweaters and strings of onions and ooh-la-la and going on strike all the time and surrendering. You do all that while simultaneously coming home from your holiday in France having had a lovely time and telling everyone about the amazing food you had in every tiny sidewalk cafe in that adorable town in Provence.

So, basically, out-of-date stereotype-based doublethink-jingoism. Thank the Murdoch press for keeping it alive this long.

I think way back in the twentieth century, it was a combination of American xenophobia with our cultural insecurity. French cinema, art, fashion, etc. was all held up to be "super-sophisticated" by various American cultural elites. The Red-blooded American response was predictable and loud.

Why it's continued into the twenty-first century, I have no idea. Probably something to do with the extended Miller High Life commercial that a certain segment of my countrymen seem to have perpetually indulged since the Korean War.

Well, it's well-established that the Bush White House set out to smear the French for not supporting us. They admitted to it, after the fact, saying they had made things up. Even as they built a new intel anti-terror center in Paris and privately lauded the French for their anti-terror successes (which were in the early and mid-2000's greater than ours.)

It was a cynical ploy to put pressure on them by reviving the whole anti-French thing on the right.

It's all Groundskeeper Willie's fault:

*bump* now that C2E2 is over.

I would still be happy for manta173 (or anyone else) to elaborate on how they see a successful resistance movement for a domestic insurgency unfolding, with a particular focus on how more permissive gun laws are central to this success.

As I read it, the best-cases that have been put forward so far in this thread hinge on military units defecting (and/or military support from countries external to the US) - and that kind of underscores the notion that even heavily-armed civilians are not much use in the kind of scenario under discussion here.

I personally cannot forsee a government that I would trust less than I trust the 2A enthusiasts who are afraid of the government.

SallyNasty wrote:

I personally cannot forsee a government that I would trust less than I trust the 2A enthusiasts who are afraid of the government.

+1

Dimmerswitch wrote:

*bump* now that C2E2 is over.

I would still be happy for manta173 (or anyone else) to elaborate on how they see a successful resistance movement for a domestic insurgency unfolding, with a particular focus on how more permissive gun laws are central to this success.

As I read it, the best-cases that have been put forward so far in this thread hinge on military units defecting (and/or military support from countries external to the US) - and that kind of underscores the notion that even heavily-armed civilians are not much use in the kind of scenario under discussion here.

Or that successful use of insurgent tactics (IEDs) would somehow prevail. Which, again, has nothing to do with gun laws or the 2A.

Demosthenes wrote:
SallyNasty wrote:

I personally cannot forsee a government that I would trust less than I trust the 2A enthusiasts who are afraid of the government.

+1

Likewise

Poll: 29% Think Armed Rebellion Might Soon Be Necessary

Three in 10 registered American voters believe an armed rebellion might be necessary in the next few years, according to the results of a staggering poll released Wednesday by Fairleigh Dickinson University’s PublicMind.

The survey, aimed at measuring public attitudes toward gun issues, found that 29 percent of Americans agree with the statement, “In the next few years, an armed revolution might be necessary in order to protect our liberties.” An additional five percent were unsure.

Well.

Tanglebones wrote:

Poll: 29% Think Armed Rebellion Might Soon Be Necessary

Three in 10 registered American voters believe an armed rebellion might be necessary in the next few years, according to the results of a staggering poll released Wednesday by Fairleigh Dickinson University’s PublicMind.

The survey, aimed at measuring public attitudes toward gun issues, found that 29 percent of Americans agree with the statement, “In the next few years, an armed revolution might be necessary in order to protect our liberties.” An additional five percent were unsure.

Well.

Well, apparently the rest of us do need guns -- to protect us from that 29% of the country who are obviously a clear and present danger to our democracy.

Farscry wrote:
Tanglebones wrote:

Poll: 29% Think Armed Rebellion Might Soon Be Necessary

Three in 10 registered American voters believe an armed rebellion might be necessary in the next few years, according to the results of a staggering poll released Wednesday by Fairleigh Dickinson University’s PublicMind.

The survey, aimed at measuring public attitudes toward gun issues, found that 29 percent of Americans agree with the statement, “In the next few years, an armed revolution might be necessary in order to protect our liberties.” An additional five percent were unsure.

Well.

Well, apparently the rest of us do need guns -- to protect us from that 29% of the country who are obviously a clear and present danger to our democracy.

Protect what liberties from what?

Tanglebones wrote:

Poll: 29% Think Armed Rebellion Might Soon Be Necessary

Three in 10 registered American voters believe an armed rebellion might be necessary in the next few years, according to the results of a staggering poll released Wednesday by Fairleigh Dickinson University’s PublicMind.

The survey, aimed at measuring public attitudes toward gun issues, found that 29 percent of Americans agree with the statement, “In the next few years, an armed revolution might be necessary in order to protect our liberties.” An additional five percent were unsure.

Well.

I agree with that statement. Read the wording - 'might be necessary'. It is the common course of our government to limit rights, if we as a people want to keep the exact same freedom we have today one method that might be necessary to accomplish that is armed conflict, since voting has not worked. Of course people will look at the risks and continue to give up freedoms instead, but that doesn't disprove the statement armed conflict might be necessary to preserve our liberties. Honestly I think the other 71% just didn't think about what was being asked because how could you disagree?

LeapingGnome wrote:
Tanglebones wrote:

Poll: 29% Think Armed Rebellion Might Soon Be Necessary

Three in 10 registered American voters believe an armed rebellion might be necessary in the next few years, according to the results of a staggering poll released Wednesday by Fairleigh Dickinson University’s PublicMind.

The survey, aimed at measuring public attitudes toward gun issues, found that 29 percent of Americans agree with the statement, “In the next few years, an armed revolution might be necessary in order to protect our liberties.” An additional five percent were unsure.

Well.

I agree with that statement. Read the wording - 'might be necessary'. It is the common course of our government to limit rights, if we as a people want to keep the exact same freedom we have today one method that might be necessary to accomplish that is armed conflict, since voting has not worked. Of course people will look at the risks and continue to give up freedoms instead, but that doesn't disprove the statement armed conflict might be necessary to preserve our liberties. Honestly I think the other 71% just didn't think about what was being asked because how could you disagree?

Bolded the part I think you might have missed.

The timing doesn't change anything. There could be a new law tomorrow that limits our rights in some way. To stop it armed conflict 'might be necessary'. It won't happen but if we as a people said we have to stop this law no matter what, it could come down to that.

LeapingGnome wrote:

The timing doesn't change anything. There could be a new law tomorrow that limits our rights in some way. To stop it armed conflict 'might be necessary'. It won't happen but if we as a people said we have to stop this law no matter what, it could come down to that.

I disagree strongly about whether the timing in the question changes anything.

The statement that an armed revolution might be necessary in the next few years carries an implicit assumption that we're so on the brink of tyranny that the possible necessity of revolt is on the horizon. I have plenty of issues with the burgeoning executive power the past two administrations have exercised, but even on my most despondent or angry days I haven't thought "revolution sure would be a better solution to this than working to get candidates I agree with into office".

Note also that the statement is not "some lunatics might decide in the next few years that armed revolution is necessary". (Which is one that I'd be sad to agree with, if that poll is accurate).

People who think that armed resistance will be necessary to stop the tyrannical federal government tend to remind me of the same ignorant gits who were screaming in town hall meetings that they "want their country back".

LeapingGnome wrote:

The timing doesn't change anything. There could be a new law tomorrow that limits our rights in some way. To stop it armed conflict 'might be necessary'. It won't happen but if we as a people said we have to stop this law no matter what, it could come down to that.

Um. Wouldn't it be prudent to wait for the judicial branch to do it's thing and then try to resolve things through existing peaceful political channels?

Put another way your argument is:
Premise: A law gets passed that limits your freedom in a way you find so unacceptable that you would go to war over it.
Premise 2: This law could actually be passed within a few years.
Obvious deduction: Less than 50% of the public agrees with you or it would be easy to redress legally
Result: You decide that despite the fact that the majority or at the very least the plurality disagree with you that you have a moral right to armed rebellion.
Somehow despite the legitimate government and more than half the population disagreeing with you... you manage not to get exterminated in a matter of weeks.

I am not even sure which step to start asking you about.

Moved to correct forum. Sorry.

realityhack:

No need to apologize. Hope your idea gets more eyes and replies.

LarryC wrote:

Would an armed militia group actually pose any threat to the modern US Armed Forces?

They could inflict casualties and damage. Likely mostly civilian. And then they would be annihilated. If they managed to act normal and blend in they might do a bunch of damage but ultimately they would just be another terror group that gets mostly mopped up.

LeapingGnome wrote:
Tanglebones wrote:

Poll: 29% Think Armed Rebellion Might Soon Be Necessary

Three in 10 registered American voters believe an armed rebellion might be necessary in the next few years, according to the results of a staggering poll released Wednesday by Fairleigh Dickinson University’s PublicMind.

The survey, aimed at measuring public attitudes toward gun issues, found that 29 percent of Americans agree with the statement, “In the next few years, an armed revolution might be necessary in order to protect our liberties.” An additional five percent were unsure.

Well.

I agree with that statement. Read the wording - 'might be necessary'. It is the common course of our government to limit rights, if we as a people want to keep the exact same freedom we have today one method that might be necessary to accomplish that is armed conflict, since voting has not worked. Of course people will look at the risks and continue to give up freedoms instead, but that doesn't disprove the statement armed conflict might be necessary to preserve our liberties. Honestly I think the other 71% just didn't think about what was being asked because how could you disagree?

While I get what you're saying here, I think there's an implied "realistically" in the question. I mean, sure, I can think of theoretical scenarios in which another civil war starts, but they're so outlandish that I wouldn't consider them when answering that question, especially not on the time frame they gave.

Stengah wrote:

While I get what you're saying here, I think there's an implied "realistically" in the question

+1

I bet most of the respondents answered with the understanding that the question was about the realistic chance.

Reality got it above. The assumption that "voting has not worked" is the big one - if the system has deteriorated that badly, there will be many other things going wrong as well.

I wonder if the statement was "When the US political and legal system collapses, armed revolt may be necessary", would it be controversial? Because that's what Leaping's statement requires, as a pre-condition. And yet that is so far from where we are now that there could be any number of intervening events that we can't anticipate that would change the scenario.

It's along the lines of "When the Yellowstone supervolcano explodes..." and "After Congress chooses the first American Caesar...". Things that could happen in some way, but are exceedingly unlikely in our lifetimes.

I would just like a definition of tyranny that is a bit more serious than "They are passing a law that I don't agree with."

Stengah wrote:
LeapingGnome wrote:
Tanglebones wrote:

Poll: 29% Think Armed Rebellion Might Soon Be Necessary

Three in 10 registered American voters believe an armed rebellion might be necessary in the next few years, according to the results of a staggering poll released Wednesday by Fairleigh Dickinson University’s PublicMind.

The survey, aimed at measuring public attitudes toward gun issues, found that 29 percent of Americans agree with the statement, “In the next few years, an armed revolution might be necessary in order to protect our liberties.” An additional five percent were unsure.

Well.

I agree with that statement. Read the wording - 'might be necessary'. It is the common course of our government to limit rights, if we as a people want to keep the exact same freedom we have today one method that might be necessary to accomplish that is armed conflict, since voting has not worked. Of course people will look at the risks and continue to give up freedoms instead, but that doesn't disprove the statement armed conflict might be necessary to preserve our liberties. Honestly I think the other 71% just didn't think about what was being asked because how could you disagree?

While I get what you're saying here, I think there's an implied "realistically" in the question. I mean, sure, I can think of theoretical scenarios in which another civil war starts, but they're so outlandish that I wouldn't consider them when answering that question, especially not on the time frame they gave.

Right, that is what I was trying to say. Realistically, it won't happen. Realistically, people will just keep giving up freedoms, both parties will maintain their dominance, and not much will change. Judicial review and voting don't guarantee keeping our liberties, after all how long has the NSA been wiretapping every phone call? Almost 10 years now? To get that to stop it seems like the only options left are try to be patient for another 10 years to see if anything changes or armed revolt, but it won't happen. So it 'might be necessary' to keep our liberties with zero erosion, but realistically people will just give them up.

I find the correlation between education and disagreeing with the statement interesting but then I've known people who would use that to support their belief that education is just part of the giant conspiracy to warp the public into compliance :/

Really?

There's a lot more going on than a one-way erosion of rights. There have been moves in the right direction as well.

As for the NSA, the surveillance law and oversight need to be revisited. From what I understand, they are not *wiretapping* every call; instead, they are tracking who talks, where and when, to create a social web for analysis. If they dip into content, they need a warrant. I'd like to make sure that that is actually enforced, and not being ignored.